Commissioners consider clearer rules for concurrent local and state oil-and-gas reviews

Denver — Commissioner Mesner raised a procedural question July 9 asking the Energy and Carbon Management Commission to consider clarifying guidance on concurrent permitting paths where operators pursue local-government approvals and state-level permits in parallel.

Mesner told the commission several oil-and-gas development plan (OGDP) filings and local approvals (10-41 WOGLA processes) have come before ECMC while the local government review was still in an early stage. He said the statute and rulemaking enable operators to pursue sequential (local then state) or concurrent (overlapping) paths, and that the commission has sometimes stayed state hearings to allow local review to progress. He asked the commission to schedule a discussion (after ensuring a full board presence) to provide direction to staff that clarifies what level of local review should be completed before an application comes before ECMC, and that this would involve ECMC Rules 301 and 303.

Why it matters: Coordination between local land-use review and state-level permits affects how quickly operators can proceed and how local land-use outcomes (zoning, county approvals) are incorporated into state decision-making. Mesner said clearer staff guidance could reduce redundant work for operators and improve clarity for local governments and communities.

Next steps: Commissioners signaled interest in a future discussion with staff and requested scheduling when all five commissioners can attend. Staff said they would reschedule a meeting on concurrent process rules and prepare background on how ECMC has handled similar cases.

Ending: The commission will consider a future agenda item to discuss clarification of concurrent permitting and what stage of local review should be expected before state hearings are scheduled.